The above chart shows the votes for the principal ‘leftish’ political parties in England from 1992 to 2024. The important thing to note is that vote tallies should be rising over time in any country which has a rising population. England had had a rising population trend, yet the numbers of votes cast for the established centre-left parties have been on a falling trend.

For Labour the situation is worse than it looks. In 1992 Labour was comfortably defeated by Conservative. Yet Labour got a million more votes in 1992 than it did in 2024.

We may blame ‘apathy’ for this situation. Many more people are not voting at all. But apparent apathy is usually a symptom of something else. Ideally, when we vote we are voting for some ideal or somebody. More people vote when they perceive at least one of the options in a positive light. There is another situation which can lead to a high propensity to vote; namely if the existing government is perceived as being so bad that people will vote for whoever they must vote for in order to dismiss the government. This was the situation in England in 2024; yet even that urgency failed to galvanise voters. The total number of votes cast in England was the lowest since 2005, when Labour ‘won’ with 35% of the vote. (In 2024 Labour got 34% of the vote.)

In 2024, the total votes cast for Labour in England fell by nearly a million, after the 2019 election which was disastrous for Labour. Yet the number of seats Labour gained nearly doubled. Clearly this last distortion is a result of the ‘plurality’ voting system used in elections to the Westminster Parliament. But there’s something more important going on. The centre-left is losing favour.

The vote for the Liberal Democrats also fell in 2024, despite that party gaining a huge increase in the number of seats won. Their decline in votes is the result of what is commonly known as tactical voting; in this case it appears that about a million people who would have voted LibDem in an MMP election chose to lend their votes to Labour. (Probably more LibDem supporters than this lent their votes to Labour, because it is also clear that, where the LibDem candidate was better placed to beat the Conservative candidate, many otherwise Labour voters lent their votes to LibDem candidates.

It was this ‘efficient’ and rational vote-lending behaviour that enabled the centre-left to win so many seats. So, while, for once, ‘progressive’ voters were clever this time, the bigger story is the decline of popular support for the centre-left political agenda.

Another feature of the 2024 election is the Palestine-Gaza factor. In many traditionally Labour seats, there were ‘independent’ pro-Palestine candidates who cannibalised the Labour vote; indeed a few of these candidates won their seats.

The other important feature is the rise of the Green Party as a left-wing party winning pro-Palestine votes; especially votes of non-Muslims who are disturbed by what is currently happening in the Levant. For this see the two tables below. The Green Party may have gained ‘critical mass’, being poised to be the new left presence in British politics.

England General Election Results
Votes
	Total	Labour	Conservative	LibDem	Green	other
1992	28,148,506	9,551,910	12,796,772	5,398,293		401,531
1997	26,058,712	11,372,329	8,780,881	4,677,565	60,013	1,167,924
2001	21,870,762	9,056,824	7,705,870	4,246,853	158,173	703,042
2005	22,713,855	8,043,461	8,116,005	5,201,286	251,051	1,102,052
2010	25,085,097	7,042,398	9,931,029	6,076,189	258,954	1,776,527
2015	25,571,204	8,087,684	10,517,878	2,098,404	1,073,242	3,793,996
2017	27,165,789	11,390,099	12,379,200	2,121,810	506,969	767,711
2019	26,909,668	9,152,034	12,710,845	3,340,835	819,751	886,203
2024	24,288,122	8,365,122	6,279,411	3,199,060	1,780,226	4,664,303

England General Election Results
Seats
	Total	Labour	Conservative	LibDem	Green	other
1992	524	195	319	10
1997	529	329	165	34		1
2001	529	323	165	40		1
2005	529	286	194	47		2
2010	533	191	298	43	1
2015	533	206	319	6	1	1
2017	533	227	297	8	1
2019	533	180	345	7	1
2024	543	348	116	65	4	10

Watching that election on UK Sky TV (live on You Tube), one commentator repeatedly mentioned the “efficiency” of Labour, meaning that Labour won many seats on small margins. This so-called efficiency will make Labour very vulnerable in the next election, which, luckily for them, may not be until 2029.

Unless Labour performs exceptionally well, the votes lent to Labour will return to their LibDem homes.

What about the votes Labour lost to Independents and Greens in safe Labour seats? And the votes, Labour lent to winning (and near-winning) LibDem candidates. They are most likely to stay with the Liberal Democrats who will need these votes to fend off Conservative candidates.

The Tories

What of the ‘Tory’ Conservatives? They clearly got trounced; their vote count fell by more than 50% in the 2024 election. They may or may not get votes from people who voted Reform, the biggest of the ‘other’ parties in 2024. A useful strategy for them could be to cultivate the large conservative Muslim vote. A significantly higher proportion of voters in England are now Muslims; that proportion will only grow as Muslim households continue to have more children than the national average. And, Islam is a very conservative religion.

There is a natural fit here, going forward. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadhim Zahawi was born in Iraq and is “thought to be a Muslim”. Likewise, another former Conservative Chancellor, Sajid Javid – born to Pakistani parents – “still identifies as being a Muslim”. If the Tories wish to be relevant in England’s future, they will need to adopt a wider political vision that is attractive to non-radical Muslims as well as to conservative people of other faiths. Otherwise, the future of the Right in England may fall to the new Reform Party; such a change has already happened in France.

So, I am predicting that – in 2029, or before – the LibDems may come through the middle, just as Emmanuel Macron’s party did in France in 2017, leaving both Labour and Conservative to play the role of small ‘legacy parties’. Labour’s ‘landslide’ is likely to accelerate, but in the wrong way; indeed, a landslide is actually a disaster.

Note

In this chart and text, I have looked at England only, which is the core of the United Kingdom, but not its entirety. This is because, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, other parties play significant roles. In Scotland in 2024, the big story was the crash of the Scottish National Party (SNP). Labour was a beneficiary of that crash. But it is likely that votes lent to Labour by regular SNP voters will not stay with Labour.

______________

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Flying Fijians head coach Simon Raiwalui says facing England in the Rugby World Cup quarter-finals will be different from when they met last month in Twickenham.

The match in London saw Fiji topple the tier one nation 30-22 for the first time, two weeks away from the World Cup and was described as one of the lowest moments in English rugby history.

The two sides will face-off at Stade de Marseille in a week’s time at 3am.

“They [England] play rugby to win. They’re very talented. They’ll put a lot of pressure on us at set-piece time as well,” Raiwalui said.

“Tactically, they’ll look to take advantage of some of the things we’ve been doing, so they’re a very good team. It’s going to be a big challenge.”

He said he expected England to change their game a little bit.

“It’s a totally different match [to when Fiji beat England in August], playing a different team. There will be aspects of how they play that are similar but they will bring new stuff as well.

“It’s about us being efficient and doing the things we do well and giving ourselves the best chance to compete.

“We’ve played the team, the boys are comfortable. It’s not the first time, so I think it will be a good match.”

Pacific RWC results
Fiji just scraped into the quarter-finals losing to Portugal 24-23 in their final and deciding pool match in Toulouse on Monday morning.

Other quarter-finals will see Wales battle Argentina in Marseille on Sunday morning, before Ireland and New Zealand clash in Saint Denis the same day.

The fourth semi-final will be between France and South Africa in Saint Denis on Monday morning.

Samoa are out of the World Cup after Sunday’s 18-17 defeat to England and Tonga also had an early exit after ‘Ikale Tahi scored seven tries for a bonus point 45-24 win in Lille to record their only cup win.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

I was intrigued to see this Daily Telegraph story – King Charles’ coronation: Australian man Simon Abney-Hastings could be rightful heir to British throne (published NZ Herald, 9 April)  – about an Australian resident who could be said to be the rightful king of the United Kingdom and those Commonwealth countries for which that monarch is the constitutional head of state. The ‘mistake’ here happened in the 1470s, in the reign of King Edward IV. That was the same decade as the establishment in England of the Caxton Press.

Some context, for me, is that, on that very day – Easter Sunday, 9 April 2023 – I was watching the episode of Shakespeare’s histories (The Hollow Crown: Henry VI part 2) in which Edward IV became king. Further, the whole sequence of Shakespeare’s histories – from Richard II, through the Henrys, to Richard III – gives a critical insight into the evolution of the first modern nation state (namely Tudor England) and the wider context of that evolution. (Of course, it is also preferable to know a bit about the actual history, and not just Shakespeare’s late Tudor dramatic narrative. Useful counter-narratives – again, historical drama rather than actual history – are the Philippa Gregory televised dramas The White Queen and The White Princess, both recently available on Netflix and TVNZ+.)

Shakespeare’s history plays begin in the 14th century, in the decades after the Black Death in Europe from which the pre-existing feudal power structures could not survive as before (refer James Belich, The World the Plague Made 2022, and see RNZ James Belich: how the Black Death led to the rise of Europe); though the elites of the time could not have understood that. The monarchies of Europe represented a thin veneer of overlordship, in a world where most people had a local lord to serve, but were affected little by their lords’ lords.

France as we know it today was divided into three overlordships, the Kingdom of France, the eastern Duchy of Burgundy, and the western territories whose king was also the King of England. Richard II, the first king in the Shakespearian sequence, was born in Bordeaux (now France). And it was in the times of Richard II that an English public servant, Geoffrey Chaucer, led what might be called the ‘English-language-movement’ which formed one of the central pillars of late-Tudor English/Welsh nationalism. Indeed, Shakespeare’s histories were themselves a coherent nation-building narrative.

(The second main pillar of the emergent English nationalism was a fake Romano/British ‘history’ of England which for the most part omitted the Anglo-Saxons – the actual English – and instead traced the nation’s origins through a series of British kings (including Arthur, Lucius and Leir) back to ‘Brutus of Troy’, and, before that, to ‘Albion’, fourth son of Neptune. Refer Fake History [2021] by Otto English, Historia Regum Britanniae [1136] by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and The Stories of Albion and Brutus from Our Island Story [1905] by Henrietta Marshall. The third pillar was the printing press, established in England for over 100 years before Shakespeare started writing his histories; meaning that the dramatic stories of late-medieval English royalty – more or less true, and, as always, biased by the zeitgeists of their authors – were widely known.)

Usurper Kings of England

A central matter of contention in Tudor England was that of the ‘usurper kings’, of which Shakespeare had four to contend with: Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor [Henry VII]. The latter was Queen Elizabeth’s Welsh grandfather, and the aging Queen was a capricious presence during the time of the Tudor literary renaissance. Authors and publishers who displeased the Queen on personally sensitive matters were liable to – and sometimes did – have their right hands chopped off. (Refer The Elizabethans 2011, by A.N. Wilson.)

The underlying issue in the history of these kings was the rules of dynastic succession; rules which tended to be refined as situations arose. Definitely a good part of the issue was ‘patriarchy’, meaning the precedence of males over females. In England one rule was established through the Treaty of Winchester in 1153, which meant that succession could and should pass through a female line, even if that female herself would not be accepted as Queen regnant. The result then was the House of Plantagenet as (French-speaking) rulers of England and much of France. The Plantagenet line in England ended in 1485 with the accession of the House of Tudor.

In the Kingdom of France, the succession rule was less clear. In 1337, based on the English rule, King Edward III would also become the King of France. (Under the rule that applied, say, when Queen Victoria became Queen in 1837, Edward’s living mother – Isabella – would have been the Queen regnant of France and well as the Queen consort of England.) However, the French, had pulled a swifty, understandably, and adopted the Salic Law rule that monarchical succession could only take place through a fully male line. The result was that, in France, a new royal house was established in 1328, the House of Valois.

The outcome was that England was at war with France – on and off – for over 200 years. And the episode of 1415 (with its battles of Harfleur and Agincourt), in the reign of Henry V, became for English nationalism and national identity, what Gallipoli became for New Zealand nationalism exactly 500 years later. Henry V is the (slightly flawed) hero of Shakespeare’s narrative; things fall apart on account of the untimely death of this young king in 1422, just months before King Charles of France also died.

(There is a clear link between the 1994 animated movie The Lion King – suggested here – and Shakespeare’s histories; though in these adaptive stories historical chronology doesn’t matter. Simba the ‘Lion King’ is Henry V; and ‘Scar’, Simba’s uncle, is clearly Shakespeare’s Richard III.)

The years from 1337 to 1453 have been dubbed The Hundred Years War, and were all about Edward’s claim to the French throne; these claims did not actually subside until 1550, in Tudor times. The campaign of King Henry V to reclaim (on behalf of his great-grandfather Edward) that throne represented England’s last success in that war. France’s King Charles VI (‘the Mad’), following Agincourt, acquiesced by naming Henry as heir to the French crown, and ‘giving’ his daughter Catherine to Henry as his wife. In the end though, The Hundred Years War was an embarrassing defeat for England (as was Gallipoli for New Zealand), and this humiliation represented the backdrop to Shakespeare’s Henry VI part 1.

The Hundred Years War gave way in England to the War of the Roses. This war was again about dynastic succession. Edward III had five sons. Richard II represented the end of the first of those five male ‘lines’. He was deposed in somewhat murky circumstances by ‘Henry Bolingbroke’ who represented Edward III’s third ‘Lancastrian’ line. (We should also note that this third line had two branches, a ‘legitimate’ line and a later ‘legitimised’ Beaufort line through the mistress of Henry Bolingbroke’s father.)

The second male line of Edward III was the Clarence/’Mortimer’ line, and the fourth line was the ‘York’ line. Based on the English rule, the correct King of England in 1450 was Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. This Richard was the unambiguous heir to Henry VI through Edward’s fourth line, and was ambiguously the rightful actual king (through a mix of male and female ancestors) on Edward’s second line. The situation was further confused by the eventual birth of Henry VI’s son (another Edward, called ‘Ned’ by Shakespeare) in 1453, a boy widely assumed to have actually been fathered by the Duke of Somerset, a divisive character on the Beaufort line. Henry VI came to an accommodation with Richard of York; Richard, rather than Henry’s son, would become Henry VI’s successor. The accommodation was not accepted by all, resulting in the War of the Roses, and the assassination of Richard of York. These events are graphically depicted early into Shakespeare’s Henry VI part 2.

The outcome was another battle, through which Richard Plantagenet’s oldest son Edward deposed Henry VI. The new king, largely undisputed in the 1460s, became Edward IV. There were rumours that Richard of York was not Edward’s true father; hence (according to the Telegraph story) the possibility that the ‘true’ king of England today is an Australian called Simon. But Edward was a good and well-regarded king; well-regarded, that is, except in the matter of his choice of wife, Elizabeth Woodville. (Hence the story of the White Queen.)

So rumours of Edward’s illegitimacy only surfaced after the marriage, spread by those who had other ideas about who should be Queen consort. A result was some changing allegiances and a resurgence of the Wars of the Roses. Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne in 1470. Following Edward’s re-restoration in 1471 – after the Battle of Tewksbury, where Henry VI’s teenage son Ned was killed – Henry VI was then assassinated much, in the manner that Richard II had been killed 70 years earlier. Shakespeare did not have to resort to fiction to write his dramatic regal potboilers.

We should note here that ‘illegitimacy’ was a substantial complicating factor in the rules of succession, and was an issue that could be manipulated by both monarchs and their foes. (Hence the well-known dramatic claims and counter-claims around the [Tudor] King Henry VIII and his daughters Mary and Elizabeth; claims that embroiled the sisters of Henry VIII as well as his daughters.)

The next usurper was Richard III, who Shakespeare had to present as the epitome of evil in order to make the next usurper look good. This Richard was the younger brother of Edward IV, played in The Hollow Crown dramatically by Benedict Cumberbatch. In the plays Henry VI and Richard III, Richard murdered Henry VI, his own older brother George (of Clarence) – both killed by Richard personally – and, by order, dispatched the two sons of Edward IV. We normally presume that Richard was next in line, and indeed he had already become King Richard III on the basis of Edward IV allegedly being a ‘bastard’. But Richard’s older brother George had two surviving children, a girl Margaret (Margaret Pole in the White Princess) and a boy Edward. This Edward (or Warwick) was thus the rightful king under both the English rule and the Salic Law, as the senior male descendent of Richard of York. Margaret’s many descendants (including Simon of Australia) had claims to be the rightful monarch based on the law of 1153, and this claim holds good regardless of whether Edward IV was legitimate or not.

The final battle of the Wars of the Roses was Bosworth, in 1485, whereby Henry Tudor defeated Richard III in battle, and thereby usurps the crown. Henry’s familial claim goes back to the ‘legitimised’ Lancastrian line (the Beaufort line) from Edward III’s mistress Katherine Swynford; and is contentious, depending on how legitimate the legitimisation of Henry’s ancestress really was. Henry Tudor was also a great-grandson of France’s King Charles ‘the Mad’, the rival of Henry V in 1415. (Henry V’s widow went on to marry Welshman, Owen Tudor.) To improve his prospects of his acceptance as King, Henry Tudor – Henry VII – married the eldest daughter of Edward IV (Elizabeth, the White Princess), though this may not have (as supposed) established legitimate Plantagenet descent, given the Telegraph story that Edward IV himself could not have been fathered by his father.

A footnote here is that, in the 1540s, King Henry VIII once again pursued the claim of the King of England (going back to 1337) to the throne of France. Game of thrones, indeed! Knowing that he was a great-great-grandson of Charles ‘the Mad’ will have bolstered Henry’s claim, at least in his mind. Henry VIII only averted bankrupting the English Crown by having previously looted the monasteries of the Catholic Church; actions that played a major role in initiating the Europe-wide religious ‘culture war’ of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. (And we note that Joe Biden is now in Ireland, commemorating the 1998 ‘Good Friday Agreement’ which can be understood to be the true end of that culture war.)

Monarchy in a Modern Context

In the post-feudal days of absolute monarchies, these dramas of Kings – monarchs with absolute power – had a much bigger impact on their subjects than in preceding medieval times. Nevertheless, monarchy – constitutional monarchy – has something to offer today. Tudor England was arguably the first ‘nation state’ in the modern sense of that nationalist concept. A proper nation state needs to be politically self-contained, and of ‘goldilocks’ size: not too big, not too small; neither an empire nor a principality.

The present view of a pure nation state is of a ‘republic’, with a president rather than a king. (Or ‘chairmen’, in the case of ‘Peoples Republics’.) The problem today is that democratic republics have highly politicised ‘heads of state’; they lack the symbol of the ‘crown’ to preside over a depoliticised public domain.

A form of democracy with a hereditary veneer which sits above the world of politics may actually be a winning formula. The late Queen Elizabeth II was much loved because she was a constant in our lives during times in which too much else seemed to change too much. It doesn’t matter so much who is monarch these days, but we do like our monarchs to be presentable to the point of being regal; we probably do not wish for a King Henry IX any time soon.

Yet we still like the idea of certainty as to who will be next monarch, and we do like there to be a genuine bloodline basis to that rule. Most of us will be grateful that the official rule now – at long last – treats females as equals to males. And matters of legitimacy can be sorted out by DNA testing, although somehow that seems too sordid for Kings and Queens.

One idea may be that monarchies should follow a matrilineal succession rule. Indeed, a matrilineal rule might have been a good idea in the past. Then – to forge political unions and to ensure relatively pure bloodlines – first cousin marriages were far too common.

In a matrilineal system, we will always know that the mother is indeed the mother. Actually, on the matter of legitimacy, we really would not worry, under a matrilineal system. (Jesus was reputedly not the natural-born son of his mother’s husband; not a problem.) If our Queens were more like Catherine the Great than Queen Anne – or like Richard of York’s wife Cecily, or Henry VI’s wife Margaret of Anjou, or Edward III’s mother Isabella of France – then the possibility of a greater diversity of paternal genes would strengthen the royal gene pool.

Regardless of the precise succession rules, I, and I sense many others, favour a democracy with a monarchical veneer than an overtly political republic such as United States or France; or than a quasi-democratic overly political republic such as Russia. (Or than a People’s Republic!)

Back to the Henry V and Shakespeare

Shakespeare would have been familiar with the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Machiavelli had a very particular take on the concept of being ‘cruel to be kind’. A ‘Prince’ had to be ‘credible’; and his credibility most likely had to be established by a bout of actual cruelty early in his career, or in the careers of recent ancestors.

Shakespeare applauded Henry V as a ‘good’ Machiavellian prince.

The most famous passage from Shakespeare’s play, from the Siege of Harfleur, follows. (Note that Shakespeare emphasises the symbolism of England’s not very English patron saint: St. George. This symbol – the unfurled banner of St George – is central to the particular and peculiar English/Welsh nationalist agenda of the late-Tudor literary establishment.)

Here is the famous, very martial, passage (imagine Kenneth Branagh in his classic role):

Henry V: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

And here’s the less-quoted passage soon after (addressing the Governor of Harfleur, relating to the fate of the civilians of Harfleur), following the military success of Henry’s siege (and noting that this passage is used to establish what can charitably be called Machiavellian mercy):

Henry V: How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array’d in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch’d complexion, all fell feats
Enlink’d to waste and desolation?
What is’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash’d to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy’d?

Governor of Harfleur: Our expectation hath this day an end:
The Dauphin, whom of succors we entreated,
Returns us that his powers are yet not ready
To raise so great a siege. Therefore, great king,
We yield our town and lives to thy soft mercy.
Enter our gates; dispose of us and ours;
For we no longer are defensible.

Henry V: Open your gates. Come, uncle Exeter,
Go you and enter Harfleur; there remain,
And fortify it strongly ‘gainst the French:
Use mercy to them all. For us, dear uncle,
The winter coming on and sickness growing
Upon our soldiers, we will retire to Calais.
To-night in Harfleur we will be your guest;
To-morrow for the march are we addrest.

Now, cast Volodymir Zelenskyy (in February 2022) as the Governor of Harfleur; though making precisely the opposite response, in part because the threat he faced seemed less credible. What would Shakespeare make of the present Siege of Ukraine?

Afterword – ‘Credibility’ in Policymaking today

I kid you not, this same Machiavellian ideal of ‘credibility’ is central to the modern practice of central banking, in particular with respect to ‘anti-inflationary’ monetary policy. This idea is, literally, textbook monetary economics. (Believe me, I’ve taught from that textbook!)

In this role, the Governor of the Reserve Bank takes the role of Henry V. And the citizens of New Zealand (or wherever) are the citizens of Harfleur. Surrender takes place when the citizens acquiesce to Henry’s threat, meaning that they – in their heads – truly believe that inflation is beaten. (An analogous analogy is that of St George; bank governor Adrian Orr takes the role of George, and inflation – or strictly, ‘inflationary expectations‘ – is the dragon. The dragon is truly dead when the people believe it to be dead.)

(The irony in the present inflationary episode is that New Zealand and other countries had a decade of very low interest rates, very low inflation, and low inflationary expectations. The monetary-policy hawks were deeply frustrated that easy money was not translating into inflation. When the Covid19 supply-chain issues, the great resignation, and the Ukraine War all happened at once, there were rising prices but no inflationary expectations. Expectations were that when the ‘perfect storm’ was over, prices would once again behave as we had become used to them behaving. A ‘cost-of-living spike’ is not the same thing as inflation. It was the Reserve Banks themselves, by talking up inflation, who stoked the very expectations that they are now trying to slay.)

————-

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

The Fijiana are one step away from reaching the quarterfinals of the Women’s Rugby World Cup — but they have to beat favourite France first.

To qualify, they need to overcome the in-form French team at the Northland Events Centre in Whangārei on Saturday.

It is an opportunity that has arisen as a result of a thrilling 21-17 last-gasp upset over favourites South Africa last weekend, with Fijiana stealing the game with a try scored in the final minute.

Most commentators did not expect Fijiana to win, having entered the game off the back of an 84-19 thrashing at the hands of England in their opening game.

“I have no words for it. I am just so grateful for the girls. We talked about leaving everything on the field and playing with our hearts,” Fijiana captain Asinate Serevi said.

“One thing that Fijians are known for is that even with three or one minute left on the clock, we can still win a game — and that’s what we did,” Asinate added.

“As a captain they made me look good, so I’m forever grateful for the game they put on.”

First Pacific qualifier
Being the first Pacific Island nation to qualify for the Women’s Rugby World Cup is an accomplishment, but for Fijiana, qualifying for the quarterfinals is the driving goal.

Despite a disheartening loss to England, Senirusi Serivakula said Fijiana’s winning ambitions have never faltered.

“The message was clear from the beginning, which was that we must beat South Africa. That was the message, that we are not going to walk away without a win over South Africa,” coach Senirusi Seruvakula said.

“I’m proud that the girls stuck to it, and they played as a team to the last minute.”

That message was delivered in a stunning fashion, with a last-minute try scored right between the posts by forward Karalaini Naisewa. The number eight had to crash through three tacklers to get the ball over the line.

That try has since gone viral and Fijiana players have now become overnight celebrities in Fiji.

The star of the team, prop forward Siteri Rasolea, was awarded player of the match. She relentlessly ploughed through South Africa’s forwards from beginning to end.

Public admiration
Rasolea had already won public admiration in Fiji after she turned down an offer to play for her home nation Australia, opting to represent her heritage nation Fiji.

Rasolea said the team were still coming to terms with their accomplishment.

“Our girls had to dig deep and really fight for each other,” said Rasolea.

“I’m still in awe of it now. I want to dedicate this to everyone who supported me at home. It wasn’t easy leaving Australia to go to Fiji, so I fulfil my dreams.”

Like Rasolea, many of Fijiana’s players flocked from overseas with the purpose of representing their heritage.

Fijiana captain Asinate Serevi, who is the daughter of 7s legend Waisele Serevi, represented the United States for three years before switching to Fiji.

“It means the whole world to me. I can’t thank God enough for all the support. My plan was just to play for Fiji and represent my country. And being named captain is honestly beyond dreams,” Serevi said.

‘Huge step to win’
“It’s a huge step for us to win one game in the World Cup means to us like we’ve won the world cup already. We know France is going to be tougher and we have things to work on.”

Regardless of Fijiana’s big win, France remains the overwhelming favourite, having easily defeated South Africa 40-5 and narrowly losing to England 13-7.

However, they have been weakened by the loss of their staff halfback Laure Sansus, who is out if the World Cup due to a knee injury in the first quarter of the game against England.

Sansus, the 2022 Women’s Six Nations Player of the Championship tore her anterior cruciate ligament and will be replaced by centre Marie Dupouy. However, she will stay on in New Zealand as France’s “chief fan”.

Coach Seruvakula is optimistic that Fijiana can win if they play a perfect game.

“I believe in the girls, that they’ll play to the last minute,” said Seruvakula.

“If we want to play in the quarterfinals, we have to do right during training and through the process everything will take care of itself come game day against France.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz